'We Don't Design Courses': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL For Having 4-Yr LLB Course

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction on Centre to constitute a “Legal Education Commission” comprising of retired judges, law professors and lawyers to ascertain the feasibility of four years LLB course.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora remarked that it is not the court's domain to design courses and that the authorities will decide the issue.

“We have studied in 6 years education system after 12th. You're asking us to change that. This isn't our domain. We don't design courses, no?,” the ACJ remarked.

The PIL was moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. He submitted that earlier there was 03 years LLB course after 12th standard and that late Ram Jethmalani and Fali Nariman started practicing law at the age of 17 and 21 years respectively.

To this, the bench said: “Let me tell you, their education never came to an end. How much they have read even at that age. They were continuously reading and updating themselves. Nobody does that.”

The bench said that the authorities are continuously reviewing the law courses and courts cannot go into their domain.

“My. Upadhyay, we are sorry to say. It does not reflect a very deep study of subject of law,” the court said.

It added: “Today people are doing engineering with law. Lot of innovation is taking place. It is not for us to determine…. Make a representation yo them. We are not going into it.”

The counsel appearing for BCI told court that Upadhyay had filed a similar petition before the Supreme Court seeking to allow 3-year LL.B degree course right after the 12th standard. However, the Apex Court refused to entertain his PIL and the same was withdrawn.

“What you're telling us… I am sorry. What you're saying is that economic doesn't have a role. Everyday we do gst matters. I wish I had studied economics also…. Please understand. Today engineering is done with law. Try understanding it. There is a certain bit of lack of knowledge here. Have you seen a mobile phone? Have you seen how mang patents it has? Try dealing with a patent case. It's all about engineering most of the times,” the court told Upadhyay.

The ACJ said: “Today new lawyers that are coming in are very bright. You sit on the original side. You'll see many young bright lawyers. Brilliant lawyers are coming. This generation is very very sharp. This course has contributed to that. Therefore to run it down like this won't be appropriate. You make a representation. They will consider it.”

As the court was inclined to dismiss the plea, Upadhyay withdrew the same. 

Upadhyay sought a direction on the Bar Council of India to constitute an “Expert Committee” of retired judges and jurists to examine the coherence of five years LLB course with the National Education Policy 2020.

The plea submitted that the National Education Policy promotes four years graduation courses but the BCI has neither reviewed the five years LLB course nor started the four years law course till date.

“B. Tech through UT's takes 4 years of non superfluous education and that too in a specified field of Engineering whereas BA-LLB or BBA- LLB through the NLU's and various other affiliated colleges consumes 05 years of student's precious life while providing knowledge of Arts/Commerce, an unrelated and superfluous stream. Hence, the existing 05 years Course is manifestly arbitrary and irrational,” the plea submitted.

It added that a student may be perfectly fine with opting for science in 12th standard but it would be “harassing and encumbering” for him to mandatorily study Humanities or Commerce in the five years LLB course.

“The present o5 years B.Law has been designed for extracting money and the most egregious part is that such dirty work is being done in the name of education. A five-year course is no benchmark for judging the legal expertise of any student,” the plea stated.

Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 531